we had drumming in speeches and so at a group of us went to this stage, his fans and i crossed the barricade i was one of the first to this very tall big rcmp officer said, look way down at me, he said ma'am i'd like to step back over the barricade. i said i really can't. he said i would like is typical of the barricade i said i really can't, officer sorry. he leaned down and said my wife is a huge fan of yours and if i come tonight and tell her i arrested you i am in such trouble. [laughter] said would you like a note? [laughter] i.c.e. agent going to have to arrest me. i'm really sorry. pick somebody else. i do know what to do. he put the handcuffs on me the handcuffs on the the handcuffs on me and he said on the too tight? -- >> for those of you here in the room watching live stream online competitors of c-span2 i would like to welcome you to our announcement and discussion of

the findings of her most recent research "delivering on the u.s. climate commitment: a 10-point plan toward a low-carbon future" you can download the complete research report that wri.org/publication. about us wr i is a global nonprofit nongovernmental organization that works closely with world leaders to address urban global challenges at the intersection of economic development and the natural environment. at the u.s. climate initiative program within wri we use vigorous independent research and strategic partnerships to help advance the united states transition to a strong, low carbon economy. and up front i want to thank the research team of the u.s. climate initiative i completed a

study that we are here to discuss today. and if i could have them stand. karl hausker lead authors of this research study and the author and michael eric thank you very much for your work. [applause] we are focused on this issue because of the need to address climate change, and urgent need to address climate change since 1980. get both sides since 1980, over $1 trillion has been lost to climate disasters in the u.s. since 2011 more than $200 billion in losses have occurred due to climate events in the united states. in march, of this year the united states push towards acer's proposal to slash its carbon emissions 26-28%. relo 2005 levels by 2030.

effectively doubling the speed of emission reduction compared to its last international pledge. if successful, not only will this help mitigate climate change but the u.s. submission could offer real momentum to global climate negotiation but only if it is a credible proposal. and that is the research that we undertook. the applied robust independent analysis on whether and how the use of administration can deliver on its climate target. the scope of the research included looking at elements of the 2013 u.s. climate action plan come including the strengthening of café café standard, the proposed clean power plan and the proposed snap rules on hse. we also looked at and we also researched and analyzed state efforts that are underway including the renewable portfolio standard, the energy efficiency research standards

and market-based systems are putting a price on carbon in california and the nine northeastern states of reggie. this work and we're talking about today, this research work on u.s. climate initiative builds on research that his team has been doing since 2003. and network and turn builds on decades of for the fantastic work at wri prevented like to note that wri president easier. he has been instrumental in shaping wri into what it is today pursuing and recognizing also member board of directors jonathan lash. jonathan? thank you. [applause] >> the work that you see on the screen at that i just mentioned also included work of former

u.s. climate initiative and wri staffers that deserve recognition as well who are here today nicholas, john james bradbury, and stephanie. thank you all for your work. and now on with the program. soon you are going to hear from karl who's going to give us an overview of the research findings and that will be followed by a panel discussion which will include q&a and discussion of the audience. not only we have a chance to ask all questions about the research findings but then you will be able to engage in deeper conversations with a panel. the panel will be moderated by suzanne goldenberg the u.s. environment correspondent for the guardian and will include panelists rick duke, deputy director of climate policy white house office of energy and climate change. richard kauffman, chairman of

energy and finance for new york, office of new york governor andrew cuomo. john coequyt, director of federal and international climate campaigned for the sierra club come and mark wagner vice president of government affairs for johnson control to wri is live today. you can join the online discussion by using the hashtag low-carbon future. all right now on with the program. he has worked for 20 years in the fields of climate change energy and environment and a career that at the expense legislative and executive branches, research institutions, ngos and consulting. is a certified smart person and he is our lead author put. please join me in welcoming karl hausker. [applause] >> thank you, sam. it's always interesting to be at an event like this where you see

those 28 years flashed before her with all my colleagues in the audience. i appreciate you coming out today. we address two broad questions in this study. first is using existing federal authorities combined with state actions, what pathways could use take to meet the 26-20% reduction target set by this administration? the second question is looking beyond 2025 and assuming that new legislative authority is possible in future years what pathways could the u.s. take to move toward a low-carbon economy in 2030 2040 and beyond? i'm going to start by just giving overview of our key findings. the u.s. has set an ambitious target but it is achievable. we can meet or exceed that 26-28% target for 2025.

as sam noted there's a wide range of actions already underway but the u.s. will need to expand and strengthen some of the current and proposed policies already in the pipeline, and the u.s. will need to take action on some of the resources not yet addressed. looking at that second research question, going beyond 2025 we know that deeper reductions are necessary to move toward further decarbonization later in the century and we have explored some pathways that can get us better while still maintaining a growing economy and good employment level the we explored some pathways that put a price on carbon combined with other complementary policies and found that we could hit initial reduction of 40% or more by 2030, 50% or more by 2040, all consistent with good gdp growth and employment. we will come back, we'll come to both of these. we'll first talk about the

analysis and modeling approach we took on the 26-28% targeted analysis always begins with with a reference case projection for business as usual projection of what happens under the current policy regime. in each case in all these figures that you see here we take a net approach that includes a reference case level of sequestration. we relied largely on a reference projection for the 2014 annual energy outlook and other government sources, particularly d. be a projection of the non-co2 gases. so this means our reference case includes there is standards and policies that were finalized in place before 2014. but the reference case excludes proposed standards that are in the pipeline very significant of course i could clean power plan. as you see in figure we have a historical 2005 levels of about

6,500,000,000 metric tons and we look at current conditions of roughly thousand million metric tons with fairly slow growth heading into the future. so by 2025 our reference case projection is a little under 6,400,000,000 metric tons. so to hit a target of 26% below that, we would need to reduce emissions about 1,600000,000 tons below that number by 2025. so what are the pathways that could hit that target? the first pathway we explored we called core ambition pathway. in this pathway we assume that epa will implement the clean power plan as proposed and then we added a portfolio of other ambitious policies covering almost every other sector of the economy. and when we ran that through our model we could reach 26%

reduction. two of the pathways we explored but first we called the power sector pushed pathway. in this pathway we assume dba finalizes a somewhat stronger clean power plan, or strengthens it over time to reduce emissions to a greater extent to the power sector capping some of that additional renewable energy potential and energy efficiency potential investor remains even if they did a clean power plan as it is currently proposed. when we push hard on the power sector but maintain the other core ambitious, core ambitions assumptions we could get as hot as a 30% reduction by the year 2025. the third pathway we explored we asked we also get to the range of 30% even with the clean power plan as currently proposed? and their we pushed a little

harder on come in four areas in transportation, both vehicle efficiency and travel demand, on in touch with energy efficiency and finally in natural gas consumption in residential and commercial buildings. and with that extra push in those sectors were also able to reach a 30% reduction by the year 2025. when we ran the numbers out to 2030 we got in the range of 34-38% reduction below 2005 levels. and a blue shading on this graph also implies these policies are scalable. there's nothing magical about those three pathways that you could mix the portfolio policies that we've examined to reach anywhere in there. in this figure we show a percentage contribution diverse sectors that we analyzed, sector

policy. you will see the three largest contributors to the 1600-ton reduction on the power sector, reductions in agencies, and reductions in the international sector. with other sectors natural gas system, vehicles -- hfc's, coal mines and other areas contribute also significance slices. how do we get there? we put together a 10-point action plan that can reach into the 26-30% range and it addresses almost all sectors transportation, power commercial come industry, all these co2 emitting sectors are also covers the non-co2 gases that are unrelated to fossil fuels use. one important area that we did not develop policy option is agriculture and forestry.

agricultural emissions methane and enhancing the sequestration in force and soil. it's very significant to note although we covered much of what's possible, we didn't cover that area and it's significant that last month the administration announced a smart agriculture and forestry initiative that could estimate they can reduce emissions about 120 million tons through that. so there's giveaways to reach low carbon pathways including one sector, adding one sector that we didn't look into. so the 10-point action plan is covered in your executive summary. i'm not going to cover the whole thing but let's touch on those three biggest sectors. power sector responsive for about 42% of the total reduction that we modeled in the core ambition pathway.

here we know there are multiple factors leading already to the decarbonization of the power sector. we know the clean power plan will accelerate these changes but there still some potential left there particularly in the area of energy efficiency and renewables. our first action item is to strengthen the clean power plan in the near term or overtime to fully reflect that potential. second action point relayed, is to scale up the programs to residential and commercial energy efficiency. bold of those can combine to achieve deep reductions in the power section. the second sector i will talk about is hfc for hydrofluorocarbons. human agency consumption is still going relatively strong as hfc's replace the ozone depleting substances that are causing problems. we know that epa is taking

action already through its s.n.a.p. program as rules that reduce hfc used in vehicles, but there's more to do here, too. and so arthur action item is to expand and continue these aggressive programs to reduce hfc emissions. and the third sector talk about his industry. strong growth in emissions is expected. there's a rebirth of u.s. manufacturing going on through abundant natural gas and the return to economic growth levels. but also creates potential for reducing these emissions. this potential to tap into the kind of potential that the national academy of sciences has identified as possible in the industrial sector. there's leverage your. the epa has the authority to address industrial emissions and would also know that d.o.e. and states have programs that can spur reductions here as well. so our fourth action item is to use that authority to set

emission standards indian social sector and ramp up voluntary programs and informational benchmarking, labeling to help improve and i sure hope efficiency and reduce emissions from that sector. so now let me turn to the second question from looking beyond 2025 what we know the deeper reductions are needed. there is a limit to what can be done with existing federal authority combined with state action. eventually congress is going to have to engage on this issue and become early part of the solution. we also know there's growing support for putting a price on carbon. through cap-and-trade system's and series people both on the left, the right and both parties come in business environmental groups know that putting a price on carbon is part of a long-term solution. we know that carbon prices reduce emissions and we note

it's also compatible for robust economic growth. why do we know this? there's evidence or more experience in the u.s. with the two systems that send mentioned as well as experience in other countries. we also note of independent incredible modeling of what carbon prices weakened and what its effect is on the economy. so we explored through carbon half ways -- carbon price pathways. we explored them combined with targeted complementary policies in other sectors. we look at carbon prices that are similar to the kind of social cost of carbon estimates the administration has put out similar to the eia site cases of what carbon prices would look like starting at $25 a ton and it's already. we assume the carbon prices would start in the year 2020 several years out. we found we could reduce

emissions by 40-42% below 2005 levels by 2030 come increasing 50-53% by 2040. does go beyond what we can do simply with existing federal authority and state action. the gdp and employment in fact of taking these paths show little impact in the near term and virtually no impact in the long term. that's consistent with other credible modeling efforts that have addressed these questions. we also find that in some pathways and scenarios the combination of aggressive energy efficiency programs combined with carbon pricing can result in lower commercial sector and overall transportation expenditure. that's consistent with some of the analysis that epa did for the clean power plan. so just to recap our key

findings. the u.s. has put out an ambitious target. it is achievable if we work hard. we can meet or exceed that 26-28% goal. a lot is going on already. based on a 2013 climate action plan and other initiatives that have been announced since then, when you expand on those strengthen those, take action on emission sources not yet addressed, and we can get there. beyond 2025 with deeper reductions are necessary are embracing is key to reaching those deeper reductions that we not that can be done well still have a healthy economy. so i will stop there. again thank you for coming. i will take a couple of clarifying questions before turning it back over to sam. it was so clear, there are no clarifying questions. yes, sir?

[inaudible] >> you mention all this but you did not mention who's going to pay for it and how do you cover the cost? who's going to pay for all of it? >> under our low-carbon pathways to reach 26-28% there's a variety of standard setting that would occur in different sectors under authority that epa or d.o.e. or other agencies, and it would also be nonregulatory programs that would be financed by the federal government. none of these do we find excessively expensive. in fact, from an economy wide appointed to come so many of these measures save energy, save natural gas, save electricity

save gasoline, reduce natural gas leakage and create more salable commodities by pipelines in the natural gas industry. so many of these come in at negative costs or zero cost. yes? [inaudible] >> agricultural policy. my name is christine driscoll. i work for green strategy. >> just in terms of the scope of what we are undertaking and the capacities we have at that wri we did not explore that area are yes. [inaudible] >> could you repeat the question real quick? >> could use a few words about what kind of the modeling framework you use to do this announces? >> all the details are laid out in reporteroutin the report. briefly we have an internal wri model that can project emissions can be also used nims in

collaboration with duke university and don't like to thank at duke university and marilyn brown at georgia tech, both of whom helped us with the modeling. spirit we will have more q&a after the panel. thank you, karl. [applause] >> all right. i'd like to introduce our moderator who will then call of the panelists and provide a little more bio on each. she is the use environmental correspondent for the guardian and is based in washington, d.c. she's known as a tough and decisive reporter. she has won several awards for her work in the middle east, added 2000 recovered the u.s. invasion of iraq from baghdad. is also author of mad in

president about hillary clinton's historic run for the white house. suzanne, thanks for being here. thanks for moderating. [applause] >> hi. thank you so much everybody, for coming here. i think it's going to be a great panel. this is a really exciting your as everyone knows for climate change for those of us who live in the day it's been busier than ever because of the prospects of the pairs climate conference, the idea that we can now come we are now very close to reaching a very important deal on a global deal on climate change that could indeed limit warming to two degrees celsius which is the internationally agreed safe limit for global warming. so it's a very busy on climate change and i'm so excited that we have with some of the people

who are build in the thick of things here and who will help determine what happens at paris, whether pairs reduce every strong agreement that can keep the world safe from future climate change, or whether it will fall short of those goals. i'm going to be bringing up the panelists now. i'm going to be starting with rick duke who works on energy and climate change at the white house and who is deeply involved with every aspect of president obama's their ambitious climate plan that was rolled out two years ago. we've got coming in at the extreme left, we've got karl -- [laughter] strictly at the left of the panel. there's no just a place that issue. karl hausker you just heard from. you've got mark wagner, vice

president of government affairs at johnson controls but if you're not familiar with johnson controls it's deeply involved with producing the set of next generation of technology especially car batteries that are going to change the way we live and i will also determine whether we get -- we got richard kauffman who is chairman of energy and finance for new york state. you've heard about california being a leader on green issues. well, new york is doing a lot, too. we will hopefully get a chance to hear from him. and we've got rick duke as i said, here beside me as john coequyt was a director of federal and international programs at the sierra club and who has been monitoring the talks at paris and also the action by government and industry for the past several years and will be looking for the time it. so i'm going to take my place in the middle of the panel.

and i thought, you know, after that great, there's so much sort of gloom and doom also in the states it was great to hear from karl that comes in a it is a very clear path for the u.s. to reach its climate goals. and i want to sort of start off with you, rick, and sort of ask you how, you know what the administration can do now to sort of to span the actions have been taken from attacks that we know are coming from, you know, from congress and the court come in from an uncertain future after 2016. how can the white house defend what's been accomplished so far and what more can we expect to sort of move towards that thing

energy future? >> thank you suzanne. and good morning, everyone. i think it's important just to step back and said hello bit of context about the president's action on climate change over the course of the two terms. when you go back to the beginning of the first term, at that point in time our emissions were projected to grow indefinitely through time. and instead of accepting that the president set an ambitious goal to cut emissions 17% by 2020 and started a whole series of actions in the first term to deliver those results. at the beginning of a second term he came forward with a strong statement on climate change in his inaugural address followed shortly thereafter by the historic climate action plan in june 2013. and what we are seeing is that poll after poll shows that americans support climate action. they support strong action on climate.

in measures like historic fuel economy standards delivered during the first term appliance efficiency standards, doubling renewable electricity during the first term and a whole suite of other measures that are in motion under the climate action plan our candy energy waste, saving consumers money and they're deluding both carbon pollution reduction and public health benefits. so our intention is to continue acting, continue to deliver what we promise under the climate action plan and hit our targets accordingly. we think the public is with us. >> arthur any specifics -- are there any specific actions? how can we are sure these actions taken are going to be safe from challenge in the courts, are going to be safe from challenges by republicans in congress? >> when you look at the full set of things that are in motion consistent with the president's climate action plan, first it's

important to recognize that it's a comprehensive approach to make steady progress across all sectors and all greenhouse gases. in that sense it's a diversified approach. we have fuel economy standards hfc for that action from nothing would action, clean power plan, cutting energy waste, scaling clean energy and delivering consumer savings and public health benefits and economic growth at the same time. ..

there is litigation are challenged to it he gave him what he would hear it ultimately they been successful in the economy expense or by faintly glimmer the public health benefits. we will see more success going forward on key elements across the board. >> from the presentation just now are there any specific measures from the presentation you think the white house administration can embark on in the time remaining to get to that 26% to 20% target. >> well i think it is important to note it is starting a 10 part list on the report. the one that i would mention because that was stored to be everything else but it and its

notable as we indicated just a few weeks ago secretary vilsack put forward a comprehensive plan to drive down the missions of the agricultural sector. the whole set of existing programs and voluntary efforts and engagement of the agricultural sector we see now contributing up to 2% economy wide production and greenhouse gases by 2025. that's an example of the comprehensive. the president has challenged each of the secretaries on the administration to look for what can be uncovered every opportunity we can pursue and we expect to complete a robust set of measures and i think the secretary of agriculture's leadership in this domain is a

good example of what can be accomplished. >> as somebody who followed the progress of the talks when you are in the corridor you hear -- i hear people say we're not sure the u.s. can deliver. based on the white house and the plan are you confident the administration can deliver on his goals? >> that's a tough question. i think what we see here and what we see rick speaking to and where the administration is common they have absolute commitment required to achieve the target. it is important when we take steps back to see the incredible opposition and the potential for delay there is not small. i think that countries should recognize that every country has

their political problems that they have to overcome. the united states is no different than any other country. we've seen in the recent elections in the u.k. challenges there as well. so i guess my reaction is that the u.s. is negotiating an absolute positive and good interests. no intention of putting numbers on the table but they also put on the table some really robust standards in some really difficult goals to achieve and that is what everyone wanted from the u.s. so the fact that it's hard to say exactly how we get there and there's some question on the table as to how the goals are achievable in questions to whether legislative authority is required to meet them if they could mean. they should feel emboldened the u.s. didn't put the same weak standards we put on the table in

the past administration. i don't know how many people were the intensity-based targets of the bush administration and they would go to the cops and roll out things like this that just recounted the good work states were doing. we are at a very different place now but we continue to have challenges in front of us and any country evaluating what the u.s. is has to recognize that. >> one of the things in the lead up to the paris climate talks with the importance of the business sector in reaching goals and getting a strong agreement, how important is it to see strong direction from the administration on climate issues and how does that help? >> i think leadership is critical in being able to get through any of these things and

reach success. we are a global company. when i look at recommendations, i find we are deeply involved in five of them. we are working with the states right now. the epa proposed innovative ways to have energy efficiency is a climate option dealing upper commercial building energy efficiency programs. we make chillers and air conditioners and we are committed to reducing the gwp. and i run manufacturing, we are looking at reducing the emissions from our fact juries. we've committed to 25% reduction over 10 years. halfway through that we are a

21%. it is achievable. finally we are making an dance batteries both lithium-ion and start stop batteries all over the world to reduce emissions from vehicles. so there's any number of points in here of points in here that we as the business community, a lot of a lot of the policies driving the technology. >> especially in the areas of the automotive. >> exactly. you mention the batteries. we make lithium-ion batteries for hybrids and electric vehicles. we've also been making a lot of what is known as start and stop where you put your foot on the break and it reduces the idling time. at least 60% coming in the united states where you see a lot more of the newer vehicles. the chevy malibu, ford f1 50 trapped. a lot more cars are switching to

start stop load. not only the hybrid side of the equation looking up the vast majority the vehicles still being produced out their year-over-year. 95% of the vehicles are still internal combustion engines. it can reduce emissions and fuel economy by 5%. there's a new car fleet still out there. >> richard how engaged of the people of new york state and in the wake and how big of a priority effect a priority effect and what shift the scene of public opinion with regard to climate action. >> banks. i was a colleague of rick duke at the department of energy and now gore states, one of the things i'm concerned about is we are here for the federal

government in here to help. one of the great things is that stayed have a tremendous amount of latitude in terms of how to implement the proposed rule. so it is a very good and we appreciate that at the state level because states really as justice brandeis pointed out states are often the laboratories of democracy. so there is a range of policy innovation going on a different state. so a little bit about what we are doing. governor cuomo called me right after sandy because i was working in washington and that the electricity sector is still operating in the vinyl record days in the age of the ipod

and that is really true not only in terms of resilience that many respects. so while climate is a central part of what we're trying to do in new york state, the good news here is there are a lot of other reasons why we are embarked upon a significant change in our power sector because we are not only have not been on a path that is sustainable from an environmental standpoint we are not on a path is economically sustainable because we pay high costs for electricity in the state. so while generation costs have moderated because of the benefit of natural gas the cost of transmission and distribution continued to go up in the infrastructure costs with an aging infrastructure and lots of the united states the united

states of aging infrastructure. we spend $17 billion in the last 10 years that will go to $30 billion in the next 10 years. and we are building are not building the grid of today or tomorrow. we are building the grid of yesterday, which is a grid which has very, very low capacity. only 55% capacity utilization. it is built for the hottest couple of days of the year. we have a system with his boat energy inefficient as well as capital and efficient. there is a question about who's going to pay for all of this. we have a pretty meaningful cost envelope used to finance an energy system which is going to be more energy efficient, save customers money and be more resilient.

>> a lot of us followed the decision the new york state note for the moratorium on friday and new york state will not allow tracking. how does that if it all work in with your energy picture? >> so that was a recommendation by the public health commissioner. i'm not going to talk specifically about the decision. but i would say generally if it's important to think about any electricity sector that is not a purely production-based system because that is what we have today. we have an electricity system. we talk about one of the key pathways here is attacking the power sector. the power sector is built this largely central station generation distribution system

was built at a time when electrons only flowed one way in when demand was seen to be fixed. tomorrow will be we have to generate power based on the forecast of the day forward. as opposed to what the technology today permits companies like johnson controls and others actually permit a netware grade that is a little bit more like the i.t. system, a network where we have the benefits of the mainframe in the cloud combined with the flexibility of pcs. that kind of network or it is the we should be building which is a combination that gives the benefits of the central station plus the benefit of resources supporting the grid and making the grade more capital

efficient. >> so well as you tell people about the decision on tracking and what it means. >> i guess the point i'm making is that we want to have a system which better matches supply and demand and that is a system which is not just a production lead system but one which is more energy efficient and more capital efficient. both the supply and demand-based solution and that is the key element of our policy. >> the idea was we would let people in the audience direct questions and i'm going to let that process earnest start off right now if people want to put up their hand.

i would ask you to wait until the microphone reaches you and if you start off your affiliation rather than make a declarative statement. that would be great. >> thank you. first, for coral you've noted natural gas with the displacement of called the power sector. what assumptions have been made going forward over the years and one of the implications for his skill in renewables and methane. >> rings are coming, peter. our assumptions on natural gas

supplies in the 2014. so we don't see changes from those areas. clearly the four building blocks of the clean power plant will cause the mixture of increases in natural gas along with renewables and energy efficiency. most of our projections assume the state consistent with epa's projections that the states will take advantage of all four building blocks. so we don't have explicit renewable additions beyond that and rather the clean powerplant projection shows significant increased and no price pressure on the natural gas sector.

>> and i had something on this point with respect to natural gas. one of the stories that is an emerging story is sometimes natural gas of renewables. the impact of natural gas of distributed resources. you can put a combining power again that for a fuel cell. one of the things we've done for public health reasons is full of plants away from another large powerplant from population centers. you there's a tremendous amount in the form of heat you can set the chimney. >> does not have any impact? >> we don't have good days. so the point that i want to make

here is using natural gas for distributed solution, you use more energy content of the natural gas but it's a distributed solution. it ties into other selfish and that energy efficiency at the building level and also again puts more pressure for policy changes that are going to enable other distributed resources like batteries are solar to build the integrated grade. it's actually a positive for reduction in emissions. >> thank you. >> good evening. i have two questions. one is pretty generic or general in nature and it goes directly to stimulation of the economy.

you know, we hear from the industry particularly about the potential for lost jobs. i want to know what are we doing in terms of stimulating, fostering and promoting green jobs and making certain those jobs are available to consumers, to our resident and in a way offsets one of the questions raised in terms of the increase in prices. >> did you have that question directed towards anyone in particular? >> may be read. anyone that can answer it. the second question goes to what's going on in new york. >> i will cut you off because that's a great question tv rick would have some thoughts. >> thank you for the question. it is an important topic and just to set the broad context as we've seen a 20 time increase in solar and a huge increase in

wind during the course of this administration, we've seen a lot of jobs come along with that. same thing with the efforts to cut energy waste throughout the economy. those involve important jobs is the home retrofit and to do the combining power installations and do what is required in order to cut energy waste throughout the economy. market speak to that in some depth that we might want to give him a moment as well. we see extraordinary opportunities for rapid ongoing job growth in the renewables that there come the energy efficiency factor in the low carbon solutions that i stayed to move to implement the clean powerplant. i just want to note a follow on to the prior question in atco what richard said that the key part of the clean powerplant is each state gets to decide how they want to implement the clean powerplant and many states want

to focus on renewable. others want to focus on a combination of renewables and nuclear and other technologies and we will see lots of jobs come to the transformation in each state through the speed of policies already in place consistent with the climate action plan. >> what recourse is there against those they have said they will not implement the clean powerplant? what happened then? >> so i think it's important to take stock of where we are in the process. epa has gone through a truly extraordinary public engagement process and developing the clean powerplant and they received millions of comments and are in the process now of working through the comments taking on the input and we are confident will be finalizing a strong legally robust rule is appealing for dates to adopt. every state will have latitude

to design programs that fits conditions and priorities and delivered the standards by the epa. we are confident once the rule is finalized this summer that there will be a strong interest across a and getting moving on accelerating the power sector and they will have lots of latitude in the way that works. >> just a quick comment. i think it's a very important question and notably the regulatory impact analysis that the clean powerplant projects net job gains in the tens of thousands for implementation of the clean powerplant for the reasons rick outlined. >> as rick mentioned when we deployed in energy efficiency in the field, projects out there maybe on a commercial basis it is not just an installation

folks there. you've got projects engineers designing the projects and maybe a large plan for a large facility, university military base. you've got installers in their will hire a lot of local subcontract areas. jobs in the buildings i always like to say with the project site. let's also not forget about the manufacturing side of the business. we make the air conditioners and chillers in the united states the efficient one that are replacing the older more updated and efficient ones. we make the advanced batteries in toledo ohio, st. louis, all of those are local manufacturing jobs and many other companies and making energy efficient and renewable energy projects in the united states. those will also be created as well.

>> hi, i am with the green climate founded career. i have two questions. one is another study is done on the policy actions. what i would like to ask you is what is the price sensitivity of these if we saw a decline in the long-term energy price for fossil fuels would that dramatically change the outcome? second is more interesting based on what richard said. richard is right about the potential for changing the configuration of energy generation and consumption. the thing is the u.s. -- >> your question. >> here's a question. the u.s. behind this marker is in terms of deployment sounds like a smart grids are available in europe. >> please get your question. >> mark, richard and rick what

are the policy measures being undertaken to accelerate this marker to achieve the mission the wri estimates possible. >> on the first question is beyond the scope of the study to run different price to drop teresa natural gas prices but i think it would depend on what your scenario was. natural gas prices remain low or go lower. some would become easier. if they supply and the prices go up obviously the further back in further back enough of: increased natural gas would become more expensive. i don't think the results are highly sensitive to some movement in natural gas prices. other studies if we look at the eia analysis, the clean powerplant that just came out

last week explores some sensitivity on energy crisis and that is worth looking at. >> if we can't get to people who want to pick up on this marker at question of what could be done to get the u.s. to catch up with europe and other countries. >> so, the great is a shared responsibility to state and federal authorities. much of the part of the great however it relates around buildings and customers is really at the state level. so that's up to each state. what we are doing in new york state is profoundly changing the regulatory intends for utilities. we've sold to utilities that their job in addition to discovering electricity is to do a few things.

there are now to become more capital efficient and they only get paid for a profit based upon the quantum of capital they invest. they don't get paid based upon the amount of electricity people consumed that they get no compensation for any human capital. just physical capital. we want to know why it is or not to plan the best technology because given the choice for example between the pole in the last 50 years in a piece of software which may not feel it capitalize there will always be pulled because they get no profit. so we are saying they need to be more capital efficient. they need to integrate distributed resources where it makes sense for the grid and we

also want utilities to make investment in the network that's going to enable robust third-party competitors to offer services to customers. when you add all those things together it will lead to greater investment in the kind of network infrastructure they try to describe which again looks a lot more like the i.t. system than the current grid we have today. >> think of this on the demand side of the grid if you will. two points. a lot of what we see his customers are lucky man and artist are to install projects this week putting intelligent facilities. a lot of lessons learned in terms of who's still a slight on after the hurricane through people produce their own power. they're wrapping up other efficiency measures.

as you mentioned before, resiliency standpoints. gas-fired co-jet and plans are becoming more of an interest to customers. the other side the building side of things i like to say it's at the end of the line if you will. being able to demand side management capacities from 85 95 100 degrees at 3:00 in the afternoon, can you is a large customer, a large institution and to what extent can you do that. selected temperature in the room. star-studded models in different ways town and programmatic basis and be able to have the communication with the smart great to know when those price signals are coming, to know when the rates will come and when the utilities they need you to spend the mode right now so i don't have to turn the extra generator out there.

those are the types of things you build a house with the people that distributed generation up there to truly make this marker is complete. >> i want to make it clear the problem is not the technology. the technology is here. the problem is the regulatory structure which inhibits its adoption. right now it's an example it is a compliance matter that the utilities must do. >> maybe we can bring in brick to talk about policies of the regulatory structure that could help. >> sure. this is an arab or the dynamism that the u.s. private sector is clear in my moneys on the the private sector for delivering solutions for the important part of how we deliver low-cost low carbon infrastructure going

forward. there's an important policy interface buries well. within a wide range of solutions we need for the long-term transformation of the low carbon energy. this is one of the important tools in the cage. we've invested in that through the recovery program in part investment smarts meter technology also things like single pacers and a whole range of cutting-edge technology that help us deliver savings and we are continuing to budget for innovation through the department of energy's electricity. there are important policy interface is beyond not. ferc has given to have those right markets develop in the state and broadly supportive about work. under the clean powerplant we expect this space will look to this as part of their toolkit to deliver the reductions in the clean energy they want.

>> i have a very simple yes or no question for mr. duke. is there a publicly available document that describes how the laundry list of measures in the eye and d.c. will achieve 26% to 28% emissions reductions that are promised and if not, why not. >> so while i acknowledge there are no simple answers in this line of work, let me give a more complicated answer but an important one. let me give a more comprehensive contexts. when we look at the overall climate negotiations, one of the things the administration continues to prioritize and achieve progress on his ensuring transparency and accountability

are core to the overall process and that is delivered important elements we expect to see in the paris discussions as well. for example every two years now every major economy is putting forward biannual reports. we did our first ever biannual report last year and we have another one due now on the two year mark. every major economies providing the same transparent e-commerce and accountability and that's a critical feature of the international discussion on climate and we intend to continue to fully comply with what we've negotiated in terms of transparency and accountability on how we do on our climate targets. so i would point you in the first instance are biannual report which provides important information with respect to her 2020 target and i would invite you to stay tuned as we move forward to put forward our second biannual report on schedule with every other major

economy in this report from wri is consistent with the internal contract with their 2020 and 2025 target. >> high mallory johns hopkins master's candidate. this is a question for karel if you would like to comment. what are underlying concepts about the rate of deployment and the extensive use of ccs in most of the rate of retirement and nuclear plants. i know the adl prevents a -- presents a variety of pathways that could significantly impact carbon emissions. >> there again, we assume reference case projections from 2014 on both ccs and nuclear use

and retirement. [inaudible] >> i've got two questions that i may. one, how do we monitor and verify the emissions reduction and the action plan and u.s. territories. >> i was going to actually bring john and see if he had any ideas for what is needed for monitoring. >> i've been tracking u.s. emissions is fairly straightforward. i like to rely on wri to do that. there are many petitions that

track u.s. emissions and look forward to what the policies are that which i reductions. i tend to stay away from the eia and others which tends to not be good for passing and if you look for a forecast and my former employer greenpeace. i think whether the u.s. is on track will be well known for quite some time. i don't think there's any shortage of institutions that are going to be willing and able to focus attention on shortcomings that might arise. including my institution which tracks very carefully at what constantly point out to the administration on incorporating those decisions. ali the second question to others. it is going to be a really big

deal in the climate talks. >> i think that is true and where that is going to be a problem is not in the united states but in any country. there is a number of players as i said before that will track u.s. compliance with the target, ranging the whole spectrum and over on the left. the transparency and accountability of other countries. in the context of the negotiation has been very focused on a clear set of standards that apply to all players so that all countries put forward not just with their target is but what they are doing to accomplish it. >> rick did you want to weigh in and then go to the last question?

>> sure. i will just probably reinforce what john said. we've been transparency and accountability essential to the climate discussions internationally. we push hard to maximize strength parents and accountability in the various agreements and will do the same is become forward to the paris discussions. so we will fully participate in everything agreed to including the biannual report and the multilateral assessment process. last december in lima i sat in the hot seat and discuss with the entire plenary how we do against our targets and took questions in every country is now doing not a man is critical to make sure we've got rod transparency and accountability across all major economies in the world. we feel very good about the process and the accountability that it brings. i would note with respect to our numbers we have lots of systems to track numbers as john has

indicated it may in different time different scopes. one important data point that is worth noting in the last four months, the energy information administration comes out with mud lake data on their energy co2 emissions than in the last four we've seen energy co2 emissions down 3% from last year. we track on monthly scales, annual scales. one tracks and there's lots accountability. we need to make sure that's true in a global scale as well. with respect to the alaska question, not sure i fully understood the question but we do work to take a nationwide approach to our overall climate that and to drive down to this. >> i think kara wants to jump in on alaska. >> i am 100% sure alaska is in and i'm sure the territories are

in. i'll ask my other members to give me a thumbs up on territories or a thumbs down if i'm wrong. >> hi george frampton partnership for responsible growth. in trying to correlate emissions reduction pathways that existing policies, i wonder if you can clarify what your assumptions were for the power plant sector. it looks like your table 101 on page 13 at the middle of the road as well as the go-getter scenarios assume a much greater production and the powerplant rule would promise is fully implemented. am i misreading this? this is 18% reduction by 2021

for 2012 in the powerplant factor only envisions a 16% reduction by 2030. >> as we lay out in the full report the reduction in the power sector and are three pathways include the effects of the clean power plant and federal appliance standards and other federal programs we have treated as additive to what is going on at this stage level in the clean power plant and we lay that out in detail in the report. >> hi, rachel maccormack. really quick question. i was wondering if wri plans to update the analysis when it finalized this summer. >> i can't say for sure whether we will do that.

i've been laid out in his remarks we been doing ongoing analysis of the u.s. mitigation potential over the years. i hope we have a chance to update this as we move forward. >> i just want to follow up on the answer about transparency and accountability. when the u.s.-china agreement was announced i remember mr. podesta and ms. mccarthy said it was based on careful analysis of all the things that could be done under existing law and that is how to 26% to 28% reduction commitment was calculated. my question is the follow-up. if there was that analysis that got 26% were available to the public. >> for your question. i may just give a quick contact

amanda lang referred for the targets. last november president palmer, president she announced an historic set of targets to cut emissions and this is something that has a galvanizing effect on the overall momentum and context of the paris negotiations. send and receive countries they represent x 2% of global energy co2 emissions come forward with those 2020 emissions reduction target. lots of momentum, lots of movement to deploy low carbon technologies and see the costs come down accordingly. india has put forward a target of 175 gigawatts of renewables by 2022 which is 10% of the electricity would come from renewable energy by that year. we see considerable momentum coming out of the joint

announcement and to get to the question of the development of the target by 2025 we went through intensive dialogue with the different agencies and the administration about what is possible under existing authorities and existing statutes to drive down emissions. the president has asked every agency to consider what they can do and keep looking for options to drive down emissions similar to what secretary vilsack has come forward to announcing the agriculture sector. to the joint announcement we confer with the different agencies and the closed it all the the options across every sector under existing authorities to drive down emissions. as i've indicated, we participate fully in the climate negotiations process and we are pushing at every turn for common

standards of transparency and accountability that all major economies are doing in lockstep and will continue to push for mechanisms in the context of the global negotiations and will fully deliver on the trans-errancy accountability in lockstep with other countries that they move forward. >> just to follow up on mac -- i'm sorry jim i get from the congressional research service. appreciating the u.s. long-standing push for trans-errancy and accountability in the framework convention would it make sense for the united states to demonstrate the kind of transparency and detailing its commitment that we would like to see from other key countries like china and india. >> thank you for the question.

the important aspect we bring to this topic is we need global action on what is a global challenge. to make that happen in a sustained way over the years and decades where we need to see transformation towards a global low carbon economy requires all major economies participate only in providing clear target and guidance on how they do against those goals. as other panelists have indicated, our numbers are quite clear in its other countries where we see more opportunity to clarify and document what happens than what the plans are. we need to negotiate accordingly and will continue to push for maximum heat and will continue to fully comply with what we've negotiated in the context. again i point to the multilateral assessment i participated in them we met in the context of climate negotiations this past december pointing to the biannual report

and forthcoming biannual reports and the fact all major economies are not doing the same -- >> and i jumped in and ask you to spell out how this is such a complicated thing. perhaps put it in layman's language why it is so difficult to figure out who is doing what in the climate negotiations. why transparency and verification are such an issue. >> i am happy to jump in here. the thing that we are stepping around is in a lot of countries we have developing information about the basic greenhouse gas emissions in those countries. what is industry contributing and what are the consumers and others contributing said the basic thing negotiated is the entry level of accountability on what were the actual emission than what we're doing to achieve the target that. that is not a question in the united states. >> but for other countries are

globally is there a uniform way of expressing the actions being taken? >> would have been expected of countries is they will spell out exactly how they meet the emission reduction targets they've pledged. this is a long range up. these are actions taken by future administration. there are huge factors that play including big switches away from coal and other resources that are local. there are ongoing questions about what future congress and others will play in all of those that does mean we will have to adapt as we move forward. we know it will be difficult to meet this target in the u.s. when it will be difficult to meet the target the e.u. has said. i don't think anyone expects they will essay here is the playbook and how will meet the target. that is why wr gives the report

to show a multitude of options. in the future you will see the administration laying out additional policies that they will follow to achieve the targets. we will see future administrations do that and we'll see an acceleration of an emissions reduction in response to the changes. nowhere in the process or frankly in our domestic article process do we expect parties to lay out what they're going to do 10 years forward. >> that is a clear point that there is no uniform way of expressing target and no dictates coming from the top down. >> there is not. we will go to people who have been asked questions at. >> mr. duke i would like to ask anything for the fourth time could you answer directly and simply a question of when are you going to release the assumptions that are behind her

26% to 20% reduction so we can evaluate and audit their reasonableness. i don't want you to answer any other questions without one. >> sir, when we look at the overall climate action plan we laid out in the climate action plan it tells and in our formal submission of our intended national determined contribution in the u.n. context the different statutory authorities in the different measures -- [inaudible] >> so as i was just saying, we've laid out quite a bit of detailed the climate action plan itself and then are intended nationally determined contribution the different statutory authorities and measures pursuing in order to deliver the 2020 and 2025 goals.

that includes things like the clean power plant, a second phase of heavy duty vehicle standards and three gigatons worth of emissions reductions from applying efficient the end equipment efficiency and additional reductions from building codes determination been important progress on hoc reduction, methane reduction in all of these things are part of what we put forward publicly, which will then continue to report on as we proceed. so this summer we will see epa finalized the claim power plants and important new information will be part of the final ruling can be factored into everyone's assessment of how we are doing against overall goals. same thing applies to every efficiency standard the department of energy will bring forward with energy waste reduction consumer savings. same thing with epa's

significant alternatives policy program to reduce hoc's which by the way we are working very importantly on the domestic and the international front to address hoc emissions. that's an important part of the elements and i want to comment on that briefly while i have a chance. >> i've been told there is one question and there's time for one more question which we can take from the floor. and then i actually wanted to get a quick question on my own. >> alan greenberg, u.s. department of transportation. on an earlier point you made tapping authority and so forth to look at other sectors i believe it's the center for public integrity at nyu put out something that suggested there was broad authority under

two-part in section 115 involving the regulation of international recognize polluted than to 11 for fuel. the theory is u.k. do an economy wide regulatory approach based on these two sections. i am wondering whether that's been looked at either by you or coral or john if you have any comments. thank you. >> i'm happy to answer the question on section 115. and sometimes about authority exists exists. it offers potential for the broad approach. right now it is pretty clear where the administration is having under section 111. i think the amount of energy and time that's gone into set the standard and the process that launches going forward shows

they are not intending to move forward under section 115 but nevertheless the authority does remain and if the potential backstop in the future and potential way to get broader emission reduction if we continue to use administration authority in this post 2025. >> if no one wanted to weigh in i will close out if i could ask any one given here what they thought the prospects getting action from congress or involvement from congress between now and november 2016, if anyone that was remotely a reality that could have been. >> i worked out between now and november 2016.

the key mass and energy bills both of them whether they can make it across the finish line. >> come on. you can be the optimist. >> i can try. congress is absolutely going to take some action on energy year after year at this point. what will the impact the world is the real question. we saw it pass the bill is two senators on the floor after years of energy efficiency. we know there is some creativity at play. i think something meaningful, something that made a difference. i don't think that's in the cards. >> for a sec and --

>> in 2016 everything is possible. >> i do want to make a point which is that some of the things we are talking about that are going on in the market and from a technology standpoint are happening irrespective of whether congress acts. the cost of distributing solutions batteries, solar fuel cells all that stuff is going down and then cases exponentially. the utility business model is under pressure. the customers are wanting to have more control over the energy whether its resiliency for independence. this is not going to change. the question is not can these sources be stopped. it's a question of what's the opportunity cost in terms of time, what is the cost in terms

of opportunity cost and development and how much economic destruction of value is going to take place. those are the questions. >> i want to note as sam noted across the states we have dozens of renewable portfolio standards. energy efficiency resource standard and those are spread across blue states, red states, purple states. a lot of action going on at the state level and capture the economic and it cuts across party is and we expect it to continue. >> please join me in 19 sudan and our panel for a great discussion, a lively discussion. [applause]

>> thank you for being here today. we will see you again soon. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

..

they are trying to choke off the city in the province by positioning out in the desert northeast of the city. the force is out there mainly shoot militias and the groups that are not, you know, part of the army. they are iraq he units out there and of course, the american-led campaign is ongoing as they prepare for an assault on the mahdi which is the capital and more than a week ago to the islamic state. >> host: who requested the shia-led militia to fight this and who are the sunni people and fighters fighting alongside, are they okay with this? >> guest: they were not at first. a white logo it was taken in

april and the americans push the prime minister to hold back the militia from anbar because they rated their involvement would make the problems even worse. however it is so capable and strong and things got so much worse that the leaders themselves actually ended up to ask the minister to send the troops in and so it is a very delicate situation. i was out with a group the other day and they organized partly by the clerics last year when they put the call to arms and to not inflame the sectarian tensions by playing religious banners and the iraqi flag as it is a very delicate situation and have and how it unfolds in the coming days and weeks. >> host: who is leading this effort?

>> guest: that co. that is a good question. however he controls the iraqi army. that is under his command. in this case they are supposed to be under the command. some of them are but they include many different groups and among them are three different long-standing and powerful militias that are supported and that is one of the worries americans have in the involvement of the groups. >> host: what is the overall strategy? >> guest: the overall strategy is a good question. i was actually talking to a western military official and

this person was saying the goal isn't just to completely cleanse them of the islamic state for the move on to the rest of the country to too diminish them and choke them up from the rest of the country so they can't operate in the rest of the country and that seems to be the goal for now. >> host: if they continue on this march is it possible, and are they trying to march all the way to baghdad? >> guest: i know people voice their fears but i've honestly never thought that was possible. i think the islamic state realizes that it is a dominated city.

the city lost the civil war against baghdad in 2006 and 2007. it's incredibly fortified by iran and i do not leave that they intend to march on the capital. >> host: what is -- -- normally it is just rustling around in here. great. we are delighted to have you. i am the resident. before we do public events we always start available safety. if anything happens today, you are going to follow my directions and if i ask you to go out of the exits the stairwell is right in that corner. we will go downstairs. if we had out to the national geographic and in the front we are going to go to that the beautiful park for entertainment or food or something.

just follow me if we have to do anything. it will be fine. it is a privilege today for me to welcome the secretary general. i have had a chance to see him from a distance for quite a few years. as i said i am not kidding. i'm the resident and i do have a very fond attachment to my own home country and in that capacity, watched the secretary general when he did a marvelous job as prime minister. i don't know if it started out as a statistician. the attention to detail is impeccable but his policy interest and scope is vast and it's a combination of skills that we need now. we are facing some very big challenges in a way and i think all of us have hoped the war had

ended and changed the trajectory of history and we are now back to a scratchy relationship and we are grateful that someone of the talent and caliber is leading the way for all of us during these rather trying times. in our conversation we were talking about all of the challenges that america faces today. do we have the foundation of strength that we have in nato, and it's on a foundation that we are going to build a successful strategy going forward. so i would ask you to please will come the secretary-general and his excellency. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, it is great to be here to address the

audience and to be in this beautiful building. you told me when we were sitting in the room behind here that we are family families from norway and that's great. but more than that, it's the most beautiful place in norway. they are responsible for building a power line and that was one of the conflicts i had during my time since i built the power line. i will dare go back. and i also know that you are very proud of the roots and there are many reasons to be proud of that.

in addition to that, you have received the royal order that is the highest honor my country can bestow on the foreign citizens combined with the fact that for many years you have worked so hard to develop the bonds and the corporation between north america and europe to the trans-atlantic bonds that we see so rightly for the security. i think the fact that you have these roots in the order of merit and the engagement at last the sis all of that makes you a perfect post to the norwegian secretary-general to speak about the change in the security environment. and what we ask the trans-atlantic community to do

about the changing security and the environment that we are facing so we are at the time for the security in the face raising challenges. the fabric of the security order is the state. and we must be prepared for the long haul. that's why we need to adapt. the challenges are complex and diverse. the arab spring has turned up to brutal winter. the old and weak states are fueling regional stability. and sectarian strife. the other extremist groups spread terror and intolerance, and inspire attacks from paris to texas and people moving large numbers many to flee and others to fight.

nato is playing its part in addressing these challenges in the middle east and north africa and i'm ready to set out what we are doing in great detail. but let me in my opening remarks not address the challenges and receipt of the south would focus on the challenges that we are facing coming from the east and i promise to answer questions related to this afterwards. they are coming from but research in russia. it's continue to be established ukraine and its prospects to gear up. this conflict has already cost

over 6,000 lives. the fighting could fighting could play her at any moment. that is why i fully support the efforts of the united states as well as germany and france to find a political solution to the crisis in ukraine. the path to peace is the full implementation of the means of -- minsk agreement. russia has a special responsibility. it supports the separatists in eastern ukraine with training weapons and forces it maintains a large level on ukraine borders but we cannot look at the aggressive actions.

they are part of a disturbing pattern that goes well beyond ukraine. and this undermines the principles of european security. respect for borders, the independence of states, transparency, projected a buddy of military activities and the commitment to resolve the differences to the diplomacy not force. let's look at respect for borders. the un charter and the act are clear. russia helped to draft these documents and assigned them but it has broken its commitment. crania has been part of ukraine since the country became independent but russia send in

troops and organized the so-called referendum that had no international standard and ceased part of another country. president putin even admitted publicly that the annexation had been planned in advance. after 2008, russia recognized the regions as independent states and it's taken almost full control over both between them and the rest of georgia and also sent troops that they want out and which russia pledged to withdraw in 1999. so they've been violating the integrity of the neighbors for years and continue to do so.

that brings me to the second principle, the independence of states. ukraine's p5 desire to move closer to the european union was met by force. so was georgia's aspiration to join nato. moldova has received clear warnings about the move toward europe. they claim that the neighborhood represents the privileged interest but it's to create the inference and take us back in time. so when the great powers drew the lines on the map at the expense of the smaller states, the nations were not free to decide their own destiny this

could create a severe instability and it's not the sort of europe that we want. we will accept at the end of the cold war. the third is transparency and predictability in the military activities. we built a stable system based on fewer forces fewer weapons and large exercises and more information sharing. an army arms control agreements to build trust and confidence across the former dividing lines these reduce the risk calculations and the

conventional forces in europe put limits on the numbers of movements of equipment like tanks and fighter tanks but russia unilaterally suspended the implementation. the open skies treaty allows us to look at the territory to increase transparency. but russia is obstructing these activities. beyond the document that sets up the rules for reporting the exercises and allows for inspection. they have found ways around it to avoid the largest military exercises in the post-cold war era. three of these exercises have included over 80000 troops. moving great distances and at

great speeds. in february of last year it was used to deploy forces to annex crimea. it led to the buildup of forces on the border. russia is conduct in another staff exercise with 250 across and 700 pieces of heavy equipment. nato on the other hand strives to create transparency and predictability. our largest exercise in 20 years will take place next fault in italy. it was announced a year ago it was not a snap exercise. national observers including

russia will have access to our exercise and you can find the schedule or the planned exercises on their website because we have nothing to hide. they are giving all they can to minimize the transparency of what its forces are doing. and this brings me to my final principle. resolving the differences to the dialogue not forces. at the pattern that i have described in ukraine and georgia and moldova, russia has the ability to use force or to coerce its neighbors. and the recent use of nuclear rhetoric exercises the operations that are deeply

troubling. as our concerns regarding its compliance with the national nuclear forces treaty. president putin's emission but he considered putting russia as the five nuclear forces on alert is but one example. russia has also significantly increased the scale the number and the range of productive flights by the nuclear bombers across much of the globe. from japan, to california and from the baltic sea. russian officials announced plans on the systems and they

claim that russia has the right to deploy the nuclear forces to crimea. this will change the balance of security in europe. we learned during the cold war that when it comes to nuclear weapons can't caution, predictability and transparency are vital. it is unjustified destabilizing and dangerous. all of this takes place against the background of the significant armament program. some of its new military systems worked on the parade during the victory day celebration.

and russia is deploying its most modern systems and basing the military units. ladies and gentlemen, these are not random events. they form a bigger picture which is of great concern. russia is a global actor that is asserting its military power staring at aggressive nationalism, claiming the right to impose its will on its neighbors and grabbing land. we regret that russia is taking this course because when right becomes right, the consequences are grave. for 25 years, we worked hard to

include, not isolate russia. our aim was a strategic partnership. the borders were open, trade went out and trust increased. the g7 expanded to become the g-8 and russia was invited into the world trade organization. we created the nato russia council and offered to work together on missile defense. we cooperated from counting piracy and terrorism to helping afghanistan. all of this benefited us and it benefited russia. but today the choices made by moscow have taken up relations to their lowest point in decades

we are not back to the cold war but we are far from that strategic partnership. so we need to adapt to deal with the challenges that may be with us for a long time. this adaptation we are doing it in three ways. reinforcing our collective defense reinforcing our deterrence managing relations with the resurgent russia and supporting our european neighbors. first, strong defense. the task is collective defense. our commitment to defend each other and the washington treaty

is as strong and relevant today as ever before. that's why we are implementing the biggest collective defense since the end of the cold war. it's in the eastern part of europe on land and water and see beefing up the exercise programs we are doubling the size of the nato response force. it's ready to move. our european allies have guaranteed to be that this could force over the coming years. and we are establishing new units across the eastern part of

our lives. to force them to exercise and reinforce yesterday i think president obama for his leadership. and the operation atlantic result. across the lines the president sends a clear signal america stands with europe and european allies are in lockstep with the united states. this is the trans-atlantic teamwork. but there is more to do before.

we are enhancing our cyber defenses and making it clear that the cyber attack could trigger a collective response we are working with the european union. we are carefully assessing what russia is doing with its nuclear activities. keeping nato strong doesn't work for free so we must redouble our efforts to meet the defense investment pledge that we made last year to stop the cuts and gradually increase the spending to 2% of gdp and spend better.

this brings me to my second point. a strong need to know isn't only the best but it also provides us with the best foundation to manage our relationship with russia. we do not seek consultation with russia nor do we seek its isolation. we still aspire to a constructive relationship with russia because that would benefit the atlantic security and the whole international border. but russia has changed and we must adapt. in doing so, we will change br. we are sticking to our principles and to our international commitments.

we are committed to preserving european security institutions and agreements. we will remain transpired and predictable and we will continue to respond to this information with information, not propaganda and we will keep the channels of communication open with russia. both military to military and diplomatic because there is no contradiction in strengthening the collective defense and staying open for dialogue. actions speak louder than words. in this dialogue we will uphold the sovereignty and the integrity of all european countries. this brings me to my third and

final point supporting our partners in europe. it is in our interest as a trans-atlantic community to have neighbors that are stable and independent. that's why nato is working with georgia, moldova and ukraine to help them carry out reforms and build strong institutions. of these nations are not the first owns. they are in the sovereign states and have the right to choose and we will continue to help them on the path. because of the neighbors are more stable, we are more secure. ladies and gentlemen for